Psychological Distance to Science Affects Science Evaluations

Abstract

In four experiments (three preregistered; N total = 4511), we investigated the influence of psychological distance to science (PSYDISC) on science evaluations. PSYDISC reflects the extent to which science is perceived as an (in)tangible undertaking conducted by people (dis)similar to oneself ( social ), with effects in the here (far away; spatial ) and now (in the distant future; temporal ), and as (un)useful and (in)applicable in the real world ( hypothetical distance ). In Study 1, framing the science of nanotechnology/genetic modification (GM) of food as psychologically close (vs. distant) lowered science skepticism. For GM science, we also found that psychological closeness increases perceived credibility and fosters more positive attitudes toward GM science. In a high‐powered replication for GM science (Study 2), we replicated the effects on attitude positivity and skepticism (but not credibility). Closely framed GM science was perceived as more personally relevant (Studies 3 and 4), which increased perceptions of credibility and attitude positivity, and reduced skepticism (Study 4). An internal meta‐analysis (Studies 1, 2, and 4) corroborated the main effects of PSYDISC on science evaluations. In sum, the current work provides evidence for a malleable antecedent of science evaluations—PSYDISC—that can be utilized to increase science acceptance.